Tag Archives: United States

It’s in the numbers


 

It’s all about numbers.

3000Donors

Elections may seem complicated, but they’re really just a simple math problem. We know 80% of Washington voters support making our state safer by extending criminal background checks to all gun purchases. We’re going to need 50% + 1 of the votes next year for something called I-594.

Slam dunk, right?

Not so fast. We also know our opponents will do everything they can to scare and confuse voters.

To make criminal background checks a reality, we need to reach out to millions of voters to let them know what I-594 will do — and to defeat the scare tactics and misinformation the gun lobby will use to intimidate folks into voting against a measure that even gun owners overwhelmingly support.

That takes a lot of work, a lot of planning, and a lot of support from thousands of committed people just like you.

Thanks to the generous support of more than 2,500 donors we are in good shape — but to keep on track, we need 594 more to stand up for a safer Washi‌ngton by Novem‌ber 22.

We’ve set a goal of recruiting 594 donors by November 22 — click here to contribute $3, and help ensure that we have the resources to make Washington safer!

594 donors by 11/22/2013 to help us get 1,600,000 votes in 2014.

Those are the kind of numbers we’re dealing with — and we need your help to get there.

Thanks in advance!

Zach Silk
WA Alliance for Gun Responsibility

I522 … The other Washington and gentically-engineered foods ~Read I522 carefully


Washington Secretary of State

Initiative Measure No. 522 concerns labeling of genetically-engineered foods.

This measure would require most raw agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds and seed stocks, if produced using genetic engineering, as defined, to be labeled as genetically engineered when offered for retail sale.

Written by the Office of the Attorney General

The Law as it Presently Exists
In general, federal law regulates the safety and quality of food shipped between states, while Washington law regulates the safety and quality of food produced and sold within the state. Both federal and state law identify and regulate foods that are “misbranded” or “adulterated,” but neither state nor federal law requires any specific labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering.

Under Washington law, the director of the state Department of Agriculture is authorized to condemn, seize, and destroy misbranded or adulterated foods and food items. Washington law defines food and food products as “misbranded” where labeling or packaging is false or misleading, and “adulterated” if they contain some added substance that is poisonous or harmful to health, or if they are contaminated, diseased, putrid, or otherwise unfit as food or injurious to health. State law imposes many specific labeling and packaging requirements and prohibitions for food and food products, but it does not require any specific labeling of genetically engineered foods. No provision of state law treats genetically engineered food as adulterated.

Washington law also authorizes the director of the state Department of Agriculture to stop the sale of mislabeled agricultural seeds, flower seeds, and vegetable seeds sold in Washington, and to condemn and seize the seeds if necessary. Seeds are considered to be misbranded if they are not accurately labeled in compliance with state law, but existing state law does not require that genetically engineered seeds be labeled as genetically engineered.

The Effect of the Proposed Measure, if Approved – Read what it says carefully


The measure would impose labeling requirements on genetically engineered foods and seeds offered for retail sale in Washington. The measure defines “genetically engineered” to mean changes to genetic material produced through techniques that directly insert DNA or RNA into organisms or that use cell fusion techniques to overcome natural barriers to cell multiplication or recombination.

Beginning July 1, 2015, any food produced using “genetic engineering” that is not labeled as required in the measure would be considered “misbranded.” The measure would require genetically engineered raw agricultural commodities to be labeled conspicuously with the words “genetically engineered,” and genetically engineered packaged processed foods would have to be labeled conspicuously with the words “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.” The measure would exempt the following foods from the labeling requirements: alcoholic beverages; certified organic foods; foods not produced using genetic engineering, as certified by an approved independent organization; foods served in restaurants or in food service establishments; “medical food”; and foods consisting of or derived from animals that have themselves not been genetically engineered, regardless of whether the animal has been fed any genetically engineered food; and processed foods produced using genetically engineered processing aids or enzymes. Processed foods containing small amounts of genetically engineered materials would be exempt until July 1, 2019.

Beginning July 1, 2015, the measure also would require that genetically engineered seeds and seed stock be labeled conspicuously with the words “genetically engineered” or “produced with genetic engineering.”

The measure provides that its requirements are to be implemented and enforced by the state Department of Health, instead of the state Department of Agriculture, and would authorize the Department of Health to assess a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars per day for each violation. The Department of Health, acting through the Attorney General, could bring an action in superior court to enjoin a person violating the measure. Separately, after giving sixty days notice, any private person could bring an action in superior court to enjoin a person violating the measure, and potentially recover costs and attorney fees for the action.

Please click on the link below for EVERYTHING you might need to know before voting YES or NO on I522

https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVote/OnlineVotersGuide/Measures?language=en&electionId=50&countyCode=xx&ismyVote=False&electionTitle=2013%20General%20Election%20#ososTop

   ============================================================================

I have had quite a few people say I have to vote yes or that at least this is a start …

I think I522 doesn’t go far enough and consumers need better reasons for why some things are not included while others are …and I

have a problem with the timing of I522. I need to have everything labeled … period

Why do we have to wait until 2015 and why should we trust that these people providing us with food are truly organic given what we know popped up in organic farms(the good bad and the really ugly) I am slightly offended by the notion that we must take them at face value and isn’t it a bit disingenuous to think accidents don’t happen lest we talk about cheaters or the corrupt.

I want everything labeled

beaseedforchangestickersGREEN

UCS and Nuclear Weapons


UnionofConcernedScientists

Nuclear weapons have become a security liability, not an asset. Since these weapons were first invented and used nearly 70 years ago, the world has become a much different place. The Cold War has been over for a quarter century, yet the United States and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are kept on hair-trigger alert, raising the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch in the absence of any credible threat. Despite the president’s commitment not to build new nuclear weapons, the administration is now planning to spend tens of billions of dollars to do so. In 2009, President Obama pledged to seek a world free of nuclear weapons, but he must take strong steps now if we are to see any real progress during his tenure. —Karla

This Just In
The future of nuclear weapons in the U.S. The future of nuclear weapons in the United States? To safely reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this country, we must ensure that those we do have remain reliable, safe, and secure. But what does that require? A new UCS report, Making Smart Security Choices, takes a big-picture look at the laboratories and facilities that research, design, produce, and maintain nuclear weapons and recommends cost-effective changes that will improve national security and save taxpayers money. MORE

Ask a Scientist

Report: Making Smart Security Choices

“How much does it cost to create a single nuclear weapon?”—Z. Witmond, New York, NY

Although the United States hasn’t built a new nuclear warhead or bomb since the 1990s, it has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime. It also plans to replace its entire arsenal with a suite of five new weapon types over the next 25 to 30 years, violating the spirit if not the letter of President Obama’s 2010 pledge not to develop new nuclear warheads. This plan, along with modest reductions in the U.S. arsenal of both deployed and reserve weapons, will cost taxpayers some $250 billion in the next few decades. That’s roughly equal to 30 years of federal funding for Head Start programs for kids at 2012 enrollment levels. MORE

Lisbeth Gronlund

Lisbeth Gronlund, Ph.D.,  Co-Director, Global Security Program

Follow Lisbeth’s blog >>

Science in Action
Missile Defense Missile defense: costly and unproven. There are much better ways to alleviate the threat of missile attack than by spending billions of dollars to build a missile defense system with an abysmal track record that will not make Americans safer. Urge your senators to oppose funding for costly, unproven, missile defense sites and to instead work to alleviate the threat posed by nuclear weapons in more sensible ways.

ENDA … a message from Valerie


whitehousebannerThis week, the U.S. Senate voted to consider the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. This legislation has a very clear purpose: to make sure that no one can be fired for who they are or who they love.

Right now, only 17 states prohibit employment discrimination against LGBT workers. That leaves millions of Americans who go to work every day fearing that they could lose their job because of who they are.

As the President said earlier this week, that’s not acceptable.

A majority of Americans assume there is a prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. There’s not, and that’s exactly why this is so important — and why we need your help to get the word out. Yesterday, Press Secretary Jay Carney explained what ENDA does, and why it’s so important in the fight for equality.

Watch the video — and pass it on so that other people know what a big deal this is.

At a time when Washington is spending so much of its time bickering over partisan issues, Congress has an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans by passing this commonsense — and overdue — law.

It’s not just civil rights advocates who support ENDA. Business leaders know that prohibiting employment discrimination is good for business. Inclusive workplaces attract the best and brightest employees, and improve their bottom line.

ENDA is set for a final vote in the Senate, and then the House needs to pass it. Americans need to know where members of Congress stand, and what is at stake.

We need your help — please watch this video, and forward it on so that all Americans learn how important this is, too.

Thanks,

Valerie

Valerie Jarrett Senior Advisor The White House @VJ44

Visit WhiteHouse.gov

Can your community handle 44 million tons of coal?


Speak Out Against the Proposed Longview Coal Export Terminal

Right now the agencies involved in issuing permits are deciding which impacts to consider in their decision-making process. They need to hear from you about why you are concerned about this proposed coal export facility in Longview.

ACTION ALERT

Fight Dirty Energy for a Better, Cleaner Energy Future

WASHINGTON STATE !!!
Two major coal companies want to build the largest coal export terminal in the United States on the Columbia River in Washington. This proposed coal export facility in Longview, WA, would export 44 million tons of coal annually—that’s more than nine times the amount of coal burned each year at the Centralia coal plant.
Right now the agencies involved in issuing permits are deciding which impacts to consider in their decision-making process. They need to hear from you about why you are concerned about this proposed coal export facility in Longview.
Make your voice heard and send an email today.
Moving all that coal from where it’s mined in Montana and Wyoming to the West Coast would cause significant environmental and public health impacts all along the way, including increased coal dust and air pollution, damage to local waterways, increased train and shipping traffic, and more.
Furthermore, the global warming pollution generated from the transport and burning of 44 million tons of coal is equivalent to the annual emissions of 23 typical coal-fired power plants. We are already experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change and, nationally, we are making progress toward a clean energy future. But like the name says, global warming is a global problem—it makes no sense to encourage more coal burning abroad as we are cutting our coal use at home.
The coal companies proposing this project don’t want the effects on our climate or on those communities stretching across the hundreds of miles of the train route included in the permitting decision. Your voice counts.
Send a message today and tell decision makers that a supersized coal export terminal isn’t the energy future we need in the Northwest.
The proposed Longview coal terminal is a step in the wrong direction, and one that has real consequences for communities across the West. Let’s stand up against these dirty plans and demand a better, cleaner energy future.
Take Action Today!

Sincerely, Jason Barbose Jason Barbose Western States Campaign Manager Union of Concerned Scientists